The Sheet with Jeff Marek - On the Sheet: Brian Burke on the Leafs Firing Berube, the Bruce Cassidy and Edmonton Situation, and more

Episode Date: May 13, 2026

Brian Burke joins Jeff Marek to break down the latest news out of Toronto as the Maple Leafs fired Craig Berube, the controversy in Edmonton surrounding Bruce Cassidy and the Golden Knights withholding permission to speak to the former bench boss, and more!SHOUTOUT TO OUR SPONSORS!!👍🏼 Fan Duel: https://www.fanduel.com/👍🏼 Ninja: https://www.sharkninja.ca/ninja-crispi-pro-6-in-1-countertop-glass-air-fryer-rose-quartz/AS101CRS.html?utm_source=Meta&utm_medium=Paid+Social&utm_campaign=H1NinjaCrispi&utm_content=NinjaEN&dwvar_AS101CRS_color=cdb9b8Reach out to [e-mail] to connect with our Sales Team and discuss opportunities to partner with us!If you liked this, check out:🚨 OTT - Coming in Hot Sens | https://www.youtube.com/c/thewallyandmethotshow🚨 TOR - LeafsNation | https://www.youtube.com/@theleafsnation401🚨 EDM - OilersNation | https://www.youtube.com/@Oilersnationdotcom🚨 VAN - CanucksArmy | https://www.youtube.com/@Canucks_Army🚨 CGY - FlamesNation | https://www.youtube.com/@FNBarnBurner🚨 Daily Faceoff Fantasy & Betting | www.youtube.com/@DFOFantasyandBetting____________________________________________________________________________________________Connect with us on ⬇️Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/daily_faceoff💻 Website: https://www.dailyfaceoff.com🐦 Follow on twitter: https://x.com/DailyFaceoff💻 Follow on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dailyfaceoffDaily Faceoff Merch:https://nationgear.ca/collections/daily-faceoffReach out to [e-mail] to connect with our Sales Team and discuss opportunities to partner with us! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

And we'll start off with our headliner who joins us each and every Wednesday. We'd like to call it Civilian Wednesdays around these parts. He is Brian Brick and he joins me on this sheet. Brian, first of all thanks as always for stopping by today. Of all the people that we talk to on a consistent basis, I mean, you are the most uniquely qualified to discuss this. You've been in the chair to hire. You've been in the chair to fire. Floor is yours.

Wide-brushed thoughts initially here. Wide-brush thoughts on what we saw out of Toronto today. John Chaka, General Manager, making it official, Craig Barube, not wanted on the voyage, fired by the Maple Leafs. I'm not surprised. I said this on a webcast, a podcast yesterday.

I don't think Craig Barrube deserved to get fired, but I thought he would get fired. And I never fired a coach who I hired, by the way. Never once. Never fired a coach I hired. Only fired coaches that were hired before me. And so that, that to me is a difference.

I think you're entirely replaced a coach much more readily than if you hired them, then if you inherited. So that would then, of course, make it easier for John Chaka here to dismiss Craig Brew. The one thing that I do, we can quibble about, you know, did he deserve to be fired, the timing of it,

the one thing that I do like here is at least they did it early. There's nothing worse for a head coach and going into July and not knowing whether he's going to have a job next season and then all of a sudden the coaching vacancies are all done. The music winds down and a coach doesn't have a chair to try to grab. That's the one bonus here. At least they were going to do it, to your point earlier, they were going to do it.

At least they did it early. I have no problem with firing a coach. I have no problem with John Shack is saying, I want my own guy. And Craig Bruby doesn't fit what we want to accomplish. I like Craig Ruby. He's a great guy. He's a great coach. He'd become a dumb coach since he won a cup in St. Louis.

He's had to deal with all his metrics. and analytics and all that. He's not an old school coach. Old style, maybe they're not old school. So I think he's had a bright future ahead of him. I have no problem with John Tank's decision to fire him. And you're right.

Do it quickly as is charitable. It's the kindest thing to do. You're not obligated to do it, but it is the thoughtful thing. And also, just as a quick aside, do you have a thought on what Vegas is doing right now with Bruce Cassidy, not allowing him to talk to the Edminton Oilers specifically.

Maybe they will at a later date, but right now they're saying no. That should have been done much more quietly in my view. Because now you've got a dead man walking, a coach. Yeah. No one's somebody put through that. Now he's a dead man walking. I think it's really wrong. I don't know who to blame, but I don't mind if they said no.

You have to have permission to talk to someone. They can say no for the next 12 months and pay them off in full. or however long he's got, that's well, that's well respect within the industry. But to say no and leak it, whoever leaked it, that's really bad.

Having, having said that, is there not, as we all know how this works, you dismiss a head coach. Generally, you give the, okay, we don't want you here, so you're free to talk to anybody else.

It relieves us of the burden of paying that coach. Like, is this not a moment, I want to get back to Ruby in a second, but is this not a moment where you know, the NHL steps in and says, whether it's to maybe even right at the top to Bill Foley, I know you don't have to let him talk, but other coaches are watching and everyone in the league is watching and it comes across as really petty. Technically, you don't have to give him permission. We understand

that. We get it, but that's kind of not the way we do business in this league. Do you think like the NHL weighs in on this at all? I don't think so because it's a divisional rival. if they were talking to Calgary or not the Calgary, if they were talking to Columbus or someone else, it would be different, but they're talking to a divisional rival. I could see them say no right to the rest of the summer. Interesting. All right, back to Craig Barubi.

A number of different names have already started to emerge. Some of them obvious, some perhaps more of a long shot, but right now I think everybody's got their potential list here. And before I get through a couple of names, Does this feel like this is sea change for the Toronto Maple Leafs? There's a, you know, certainly some familiar faces around in Matt Sundeen, but John Cheka wasn't the most obvious candidate for a lot of people. So there's a major difference there.

Keith Polly talked about this at various press conferences. Does it feel like this is a sort of sea change here for the Maple Leafs or about to be sea change for Toronto? It is a sea change. massive sea change. I mean, sea change probably is an understatement. You're talking about a revolutionary change and a very big gamble like Keith Pelley. I like Keith Pelley, I've said many times I respect my trust is judgment, but it's a big gamble boy. If this doesn't work, he's going to be out of work. So some of the names that we wonder about, both for our head

coaching position and potentially assistant coaching too, we have to consider the entire bench. Mani Malhotra's name very much front and center. He's, of course, the coach of Abbotsford, won the Calder Cup last year in the American Hockey League. Mike Van Ryan, who's an assistant coach who Chaco would have hired in Tucson when he was with the coyotes. A couple of other names that we wonder about, maybe even Steve Sullivan, who replaced Mark Savard this season. Jay Woodcroft, currently assistant coach with the Anaheim Ducks. who's certainly used to big Canadian markets and coaching superstars. Do you have a thought on any of these names, Berkey?

And even if you don't, you ever thought of what kind of coach you think John Chaka may look at hiring here? Well, I think they've indicated they intend to be data-centric. So they're going to focus on a new wave coach. There's more into analytics than perhaps in the past. But everyone uses analytics. Everyone's always used them. Just some teams rely on them more.

So I don't know which way I will go. I don't really care to discuss 20 possibilities. It's not going to get down at three. Okay, let me throw one other. I had a conversation with someone this morning who said, listen, the person I'm about to bring up here has, because we have to consider too, this isn't just John Chaker's decision.

You know, you listen to John Chaker at his press conference in subsequent interviews. He'll talk about the input of Matt Sundin. And we know that, you know, Taidomi is, I guess, loosely working as a type of consultant here for various members of MLSC. You know, someone put a name to me this morning, which is really interesting,

and someone that you have a background with, who is a forward thinker, a disciple of Roger Nielsen, currently coaching in Mannheim, in Germany, and that's Dallas Aikens. Would that be someone they should talk to? I'll talk about Stanshingles. Let's talk about Dallas.

Mike Kaska. I lost a Calder Cup on a stanching all, scored by my cup. I couldn't believe it. No, I think Dallas Eakins is a great coach, great guy. He's gotten a raw deal twice now going in the wrong location. I think he should be considered for sure. He's an excellent coach. Great guy, very progressive.

One of the things that Chaka did mention today is that this wasn't a decision based on not knowing what the decision that Austin Matthews is going to make. will be. Do you believe that it's even possible to hire someone without considering what this is going to mean for Austin Matthews? Like, should we look at these two issues at loggerheads? Or are they just the same, you know, two different ends of the same log?

No, I think they're different. I think you could fire, in your mind, you could justify firing Craig Baroube without talking about Austin Matthews. I don't think one is reliant on the other. but I think the other one is reliant. Whoever is replacing it is, whoever is hired by the Maple Leafs, I think Austin Matthews will have some input on that. At a very least, it would be consulted.

It's not a big mistake. It's a very bad start. All right, we're going to do more on the Maple Leaf situation coming up here in about 10 or 15 minutes. Dave Pan Yodas abhor, as a board. David Alter as a board as well. I did want to get your thoughts on what we saw last night in the Stanley Cup playoffs, specifically with Montreal and the Buffalo Sabres.

and I'm glad you mentioned the stanchion goal. And I had a really, really sort of a quick tweet out last night. Where do you got there? Bulldogs? You got a Bulldogs mug? Black Bulldogs? Oh, nice. Nice. Nice.

Love it. Love it, love it, love it. You mentioned the Mike Koska stanchion goal as well. In Buffalo, for the longest time, there was a gentleman who worked for the team by the name of Ensel, Parkey, Palmer. He was a goaltender to play with the Buffalo Bisons. And May Day told me, the stories when he was playing on a line with McGilney and Lafontein.

You remember at the old odd, there was the Zamboni doors in the corner and the play was May Day would hard rim it. McGilney would go to the front of the net and Porky Palmer would stand behind the Zamboni door and as the puck went around the boards, Porky would body-check the Zamboni doors. It would jet

out a little bit. The goaltender would go behind the net to play the puck and it would squirt out front to Alex McGilney who had a tap-in. May Day figures Porky Palmer got about a dozen assists in his career that don't appear on any score sheet. But what did you think when you saw the stanching goal yesterday by Tage Thompson?

Sounds like a little like a tall tale for May Day, frankly. People in Buffalo have talked about Porky Palmer doing this all the time too. I remember when we, when we was in Vancouver, we played in Boston. Our goalies would not go out on dump thin pucks on the one side because of the Zamboni doors in Boston. There's so many bad bounces. When it dumped in on that side to the right of the goaltender, the goalie would say Danny Cluteau would stay in the net.

If it's the left of the goaltender, he'd go out and try and play it. So it's the real thing. I'm surprised that the goalie wasn't looking for this. It is interesting because, you know, as we know, as we know, goal tenders will and goalie coaches will always have a book on. And, you know, some boards are hot, some stanchions are thicker or thinner, and you have to be aware of what could happen with the puck. Nonetheless, it does happen. You know, I know various people are treating it like it's, you know, an UFO just landed at center ice.

And the Buffalo Sabres, you know, the Buffalo Sabres, you know, five aliens on the ice. This things do happen. Like we're watching a couple of here, like Boston against Winnipeg with David Pasternak. that's a stanchion pass in front. Hellebuck goes out to play it. Pastonac has the tap in there. That's the Boston corner I told you about. That's the boss.

That's the boss. And here's another one. And this was just January with the Detroit Red Wings and the Montreal Canadian. So it's not as if this doesn't happen. I don't know that it's anything that the NHL necessarily has to or wants to do anything about. But if you were working in the NHL and you're looking at the Detroit. goal, the Boston goal, and then last night. Are you saying we need to look at stanchions, or do we just say it happens so infrequently?

Let's not over bake this pie. Well, it's the past, I'm going to. How many years ago is that? That was Boston window. Do we have a date on that one, Zach? I mean, there are more. There are more that they'll try to find it happen. My point is they're very rare.

I'm not going to change a rule for one to one in a thousand. and games thing. I think most goalies are aware, but it's very rare. Let's move on. The rink people, the rink guys try to make

those joints perfect. Stanchin's end joints at the Zamboni door. The only thing, and I don't know if you, I think we've had this conversation before, the one thing that I always do,

and I did this on the disallowed goal yesterday, which was originally called a goal, and then was waved off on goal interference. A really good video review

there called by Marty San Luis. The whole thing took like, well, the whole thing took like 10 minutes. But here's what I always ask myself at this time of year. And I say it with the stanching goal, too. Are we good if that's a Stanley Cup winning goal in overtime? Yes, I am. I've had that discussion. I lost a very important playoff game in the American League on a goal like that.

You did. No problem with it. We're not going to say, okay, we're reviewing that goal on my view. I'm not going to have a 10-minute review every time there was a Stanchen goal. That was an 11-minute review. That was way too much. Way too long. They've got to have a time limit on this.

They've got to say, make the call on the ice. Review. Yeah, five minutes you get the call right. Less than that during the regular season. With five minutes max. And then look at it. They got the call right in my mind, at least on whether it was a goal or not.

Interference or not we could argue about. I think they got both right. I really do. I think the goal, like, I'm with you 100%. That goal was a goal. It took a long time to get. get there, but they got the call right. And then you could make the argument, like there was both Hellenius and also Samuelson. You could have called either on goal interference. One dragged the

paddle across in the crease and the other held it there. So Marty had two choices. Like, that was coming back. I think I'm right. Just 11 minutes. That's not excusable to me. Yeah. I just, how do you, again, what you've opened the can of worms, how do you start to make it a more manageable time. Do you have a time limit? Who talks to the referee story reviews? I'm curious about that. Who is in the headset?

Obviously, the situation room is. Anyone else? I'm curious. I don't know for sure, but the officials and the war room in Toronto would be in conversation there. I keep coming back to this idea

again. I kind of like that the NHL like hockey in general isn't being drown in technology. I kind of still like that old school about it. That's why I can't stand like, you know, offside reviews. To me, close enough is good enough.

Goals are different. But I still wonder how close the NHL is to having technology that allows a chip in the puck that will tell you whether that thing went over the red line. I mean, you were there with... They'll come up to the glass system that's seamless. Yeah. The stations are built into the glass.

And someone will hit one of the seams on the glass. It'll bounce funny. Nothing perfect. But I think we can't quite often enough. Listen, you were there for the Foxpuck. So you know all about puck technology. I'm just wondering, like, is there, is that? And by the way, how much money did you take up into the stands to try to bribe people to give the pucks back back in the day?

The pucks cost 400 bucks. So we gave two tickets to a Bruins game. and some kind of merch, some, like, 500 bucks for the stuff and couldn't get one. So it'll be in Boston. Collectors items, collectors items.

So I'm just saying, like, is there a way, because you're like on that goal, man, like you're right, like so long to figure it out. Other sports have technology to advantage to make calls quickly. Just seems like now,

more so than ever, there's been controversial with reviews and goals and calls and taking so long, just disrupting the flow of what is supposed to be the fastest and best flow sport in the world. Well, we were all reluctant to go to replay, baseball, football, basketball, hockey. We all said no to replay.

Then we gradually went to limited replay. Then we gradually expanded. We've expanded to the point now where I think we should say enough. Enough. I don't want to add replay on Stanching goals. I don't want to add that. We'll live with that. That's a handful of goals every year.

Yeah. Okay. Quickly, before I let you go, thoughts on Vegas and Anaheim last night. Pavl Dorofiev doesn't get a lot of headlines, but here's someone who just scores 30 goals every year, bluntly. And he was the start of the show yesterday.

It's a Vegas called the Knights Grabby, three-two series lead over the Anaheim Ducks. You have a thought on that one? I saw him limp off. I thought he was dead. I thought he was dead. He came back and scored twice. He's pretty good player. I thought the Russians were both really good last night. Barbershap was really good, too. He threw a bunch of big hits. I thought that they all played Anaheim for good chunks of the game. I thought Anaheim played better for most of the game. The stretches there were Vegas dominated, I thought, short periods of time. one of the uh let me close on this and the guys on the morning cup of hockey show here at nation network we're talking about this this morning and colby con who you know played in the n hl i think brought up a really good point we see this with the buffalo montreal series specifically is it just me burkey or are there a lot of really undisciplined penalties and by that i mean

i can't remember seeing this many double minors for high sticking in the playoffs as i've seen Colby Cohen's a really good commentator. I like his work. I don't know personally. I've met him, but I don't know. I like his work. I'm shocked at the undisciplined, senseless penalties that have been taken. Like the only second two interference calls that are just ignorant.

That's a captain putting his team short in key times. I don't get it. I know why Lindy puts up with it. But I think the league's not cracking down on this. These are calls they have to make. They turn on to be double minors because someone, Now, the drop of blood thing really bothers me, where he's biting is looking at a drop of blood. It should be a little more profuse than that, the bleeding.

It should be at least a tablespoon of blood. I don't know what the right quantum is, but I think there's a, these are real penalties. If it's not a four, it's a two for sure. Either way, you're putting it seems short for no good reason. Wake up. So now you want a spoon in the linesman's pocket, too, just to see how much blood can be drawn. to determine whether it's... Just for the same.

Send a camera. Take a camera. Take a shot on their phone and send it to the league and see if it's enough blood. Is this enough blood for a double minor, Gary? The rule says it's a double minor if there's an... There's nothing specific about blood. They just say injury, but the caveat is when you see blood, that implies injury. But there's nothing specific in the rule book about blood.

Okay, so the butt ending penalty, they don't want to... It says it's a major penalty, but they don't give him a major. I think it was the right call. There's no force of that, but I had no risk of injury. It was stupid. It was undiscipline, but it wasn't risky. So they left it in the game. I think that's fine.

Same with the blood. Don't get him to injury. A little bit of blood is not injury. If he's got a big welter or a mark, doesn't have to be broken. But let's be sensible. So what I was told about the butt end was, first of all, if anyone's going to know anything about butt ends, it's going to be Lindy Ruff, going back to the Billy Smith situation

between Buffalo and the New York Islanders, but that's a conversation for another day. But when I saw the butt end in that Minnesota, Colorado game, what I was told about why it was a double minor and not a major what the game was, A, to your point, there wasn't a lot of force to it. Second of all, they couldn't really determine whether it was the butt of the stick that hit McCarron or it was the glove. it was sort of inconclusive

It was the butt of the steak. I think so too. I think so too. They got the call right. The referees get most things right. Let's stop pile around the referees. They get 99% of stuff right. They're the best of the world.

I agree. One drop of blood, that's not a four. All right. Berkey wants to turn the tap on if you're going to go for four minutes here. So fellas, fellas start your blading. Here we go. We're going into pro wrestling terror. Tori.

Brecky, you're the best. We'll catch up soon, pal. Thanks, Jeff.